This Month Year to Date All Time Custom
Highlight search results
Danish
German
English
French
Italian
Dutch
Toggle Columns
Type
Order
Decision
Reference
Court Division
Brüssel
Brussels
Copenhagen
Den Haag
Düsseldorf
Hamburg
Helsinki
Lisbon
Lissabon
Luxembourg
Luxemburg
Mailand
Mannheim
Milan
München
Munich
Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Paris
The Hague
Vienna
Tags
11 March, 2025
Order
ORD_11873/2025 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP2152073
Rule 9.4 RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_11873/2025
11 March, 2025
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Party

Syngenta Limited

Registry Information
Registry Number:

App_2747/2025

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Generic application

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP2152073

Sections

Headnotes (EN)

1. The order of the judge-rapporteur dated 12 December 2024 (ORD_65555/2024) is upheld. 2. Syngenta’s application for re-establishment of rights (APP_64036/2024) is dismissed. 3. Leave to appeal is granted.

Keywords (EN)

Panel review, Application for re-establishments of rights, Request to revoke an Order for preliminary measures
Cited Legal Standards
Art. 73(2)( b) UPCA
R. 15 (2) RoP
R. 213 (1) RoP
R. 220.2, 224.1(b) RoP
R. 371 (1) RoP
Rule 15
Rule 15.2 RoP
Rule 213
Rule 213.1
Rule 213.1 RoP
Rule 9.4 RoP
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right
12 December, 2024
Order
ORD_65555/2024 Munich (DE) Local Di… EP2152073
Rule 9.4 RoP
...

Please log in to add tags.

Please log in to add notes.

Please log in to add tags.

ORD_65555/2024
12 December, 2024
Order

Summary
(AI generated)

Parties

Syngenta Limited
v. Sumi Agro Limited,
Sumi Agro Europe Limited

Registry Information
Registry Number:

ORD_65555/2024

Court Division:

Munich (DE) Local Division

Type of Action:

Generic Order

Language of Proceedings:

EN

Patent at issue

EP2152073

Sections

Headnotes (EN)

The court fee must be remitted in accordance with Rules 198 and 213 within the time limit. It is immaterial for compliance with the time limit if the credit entry on the UPC's account is made only after the expiry of the time limit.

Keywords (EN)

Rule 213 RoP, Payment of court fee, Rule 15 RoP, Rule 198 RoP
Cited Legal Standards
R. 102.2 RoP
R. 15 (2) RoP
R. 213 (1) RoP
R. 333 RoP
R. 371 (1) RoP
Rule 15
Rule 15.2 RoP
Rule 213
Rule 213.1
Rule 213.1 RoP
Rule 9.4 RoP
Add a custom note or summary to this decision
Styles
Text
Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Bold ⌘B
Italic ⌘I
Strikethrough ⌘+Shift+S
Bullet list
Ordered list
Blockquote ⌘+Shift+B
Insert link ⌘K
Insert link
Unlink
Align
Left
Center
Right

ORD_65555/2024

Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_201/2024

Order

of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division Munich issued on 12 December 2024

APPLICANT

Syngenta Limited, Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, RG42 6EY, Bracknell, Berkshire - GB

represented by:

Dr. Jörn Peters (Fieldfisher) Prof. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann (Michalski, Hüttermann & Partner) Dr. Filip Alois J. De Corte, Dr. Christopher Andrews (Syngenta Crop Protection AG)

RESPONDENTS

    1. Sumi Agro Limited , Bürgermeister-Neumeyr-Str. 7 - 85391 - Allershausen -DE 2) Sumi Agro Europe Limited , Bürgermeister-Neumeyr-Str. 7 - 85391 - Allershausen -
  • DE

represented by:

Gareth Williams (Marks & Clerk) Johannes Heselberger, Dr. Axel B. Berger, Dr. Kerstin Galler, Dr. Markus Ackermann (Bardehle Pagenberg)

PATENT AT ISSUE

European patent n° EP 2 152 073

PANEL/DIVISION

Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich

DECIDING JUDGES

This order has been issued by the presiding judge Dr. Matthias Zigann acting as judgerapporteur.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

English

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Application for provisional measures.

Request to revoke an Order for preliminary measures (RoP198 and RoP213)

App_62613/2024

REQUESTS BY THE PARTIES

Applicant requests:

  • a. Revoke Order No. ORD 47657/2024, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed by the Defendants.
  • b. Order the Claimant to pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings, including the costs of this Application.

Respondents request:

  • I. The Respondents' [= Applicants] Application to revoke provisional measures is dismissed.
  • II. The Respondents [Applicant] bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of their Application to revoke provisional measures.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

Applicant argues:

' The 20 working day deadline expired on 24 September 2024, while the 31 calendar day deadline expired on 27 September 2024. Pursuant to Rule 9.4 RoP, the deadline set under Rule 213.1 is non-extendable. It is a mandatory time limit which cannot be modified. The Claimant subsequently started proceedings on the merits on 30 September 2024 under ACT 53813/2024 (UPC CFI 566/2024). The date on which proceedings are started is determined by when (in this case) the Statement of claim is uploaded to the CMS and when the court fee is paid. Pursuant to Rule 15.2 RoP, the Statement of claim shall not be deemed to have been lodged until the applicable court fees have been paid. Accordingly, proceedings are not started until the court fees have been paid. On 21 November 2024, the Registry of the Court confirmed the following information to the Defendants' representatives concerning when the Claimant started proceedings on the merits (see the email exchange attached as Exhibit SA-18):

  • a. The Statement of claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024.
  • b. The court fee was received by the Court on 30 September 2024.

The Statement of Claim is therefore deemed to have been lodged and the proceedings started on 30 September 2024. This is after the non-extendable deadline of 27 September 2024. The Order must therefore be revoked under Rule 213.1 RoP. The rule does not

permit the exercise of discretion. '

Respondents argue:

' The Respondents' request is based on a misrepresentation of the relevant provisions in the Rules of Procedure and, most importantly, ignores the main relevant Rule for the timely payment of court fees, R. 371 (1) RoP, which clearly states that the payment should be made at the time of filing. None of these provisions demand that the monies paid upon filing need to have arrived at the UPC's bank account before the deadline's expiry. Requesting a party to make the payment so that it arrives before the end of the deadline would also not be consistent with how the Case Management System of the court is set up, would amount to a de facto shortening of said deadline by at least one day and lead to various impractical consequences for both the users of the UPC system and the Courts. '

GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER

The application is to be dismissed.

The Applicant falsely apply R. 15 (2) RoP and additionally give it an improper meaning.

Rule 15 (2) RoP states:

"The Statement of claim shall not be deemed to have been lodged until the fixed fee and, where applicable, the value based fee for the infringement action has been paid, unless otherwise provided."

In German:

' Soweit nichts anderes bestimmt ist, gilt die Klageschrift erst dann als eingereicht, wenn die Festgebühr und gegebenenfalls die streitwertabhängige Gebühr für die Verletzungsklage bezahlt wurde. '

In French:

'Le mémoire en demande n'est pas réputé avoir été déposé tant que le droit fixe et, le cas échéant, le droit fondé sur la valeur du litige pour l'action en contrefaçon n'a pas été payé, sauf disposition contraire . '

Neither the English nor the German nor the French version state that the fee "has been received by the court". The wording in all languages clearly state that it is sufficient that the court fees have been paid for the statement of claim to be deemed to have been lodged (per se and not when: R. 15 (2) RoP does not stipulate the date of filing).

Further Rule 213 (1) RoP states that applicant has "to start" proceedings on the merits. The wording of the rule unambiguously states that the "start" of the proceedings on the merits is sufficient. Starting something in other words means to begin with. Starting the proceedings on the merits means that the statement of claim is filed in the CMS. Nothing in R. 213 (1) RoP states or implies that for the start of the proceedings the court fees have to have been received by the Court.

As the respondents have started the main proceedings and paid the court fee in time the application is to be dismissed.

ORDER

    1. The application is dismissed.
    1. The Applicant must bear the costs of this application.

INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL

Any party may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to R. 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (R. 102.2 RoP)

DETAILS OF THE ORDER

Order no. ORD_65555/2024 in ACTION NUMBER: Not provided

UPC number:

UPC_CFI_201/2024

Action type:

Not provided

Related proceeding no. Application No.:

23636/2024

Application Type:

Application for provisional measures (RoP206)

Dr. Zigann Presiding Judge and Judge-rapporteur

Showing 1 to 2 of 2 results
Subscription required
To use more advanced filters, you need an active subscription.